Hoi,
Do we have a way of indicating that something was graded at a given date ?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 March 2014 22:35, Andrew Gray <[email protected]> wrote:
> The WP 1.0 model is pretty good (at least across a sample of a hundred or
> so articles) but it's quite labour-intensive. It's also very easy to give
> completely misleading answers, because there's no re-review process - in
> the bulk of cases, articles get rated once and then never looked at again.
> So we have stub articles which are 10,000 characters long with diagrams and
> references and so forth, because no-one ever remembers to re-rate it or
> indeed because people think it's not their business to.
>
> As a result, a recently rated set of articles is a meaningful result, but a
> selection of already-rated articles isn't - there's simply no way to tell
> if they're stale.
>
> It would be great if this sort of rating was being systematically checked -
> but at a vague estimate of thirty seconds to scan, grade, and tag,
> aggregated across all pages on enwiki, that's about fifteen or twenty
> person-years of work to do it as a once-off, much less a rolling process.
>
> Andrew.
>
> On 25 March 2014 23:35, Pete Forsyth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Philippe,
> >
> > The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia
> > 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever
> > published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size
> > etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure
> > article quality.
> >
> > Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette
> > <[email protected]>wrote:
> >
> >> During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality.
> >> Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we
> don't
> >> have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it. AFT actually played with
> >> that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers
> >> into editors.... but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article
> >> quality very well.
> >>
> >> I'd very much like to see that change. I had actually hoped, as we
> >> finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this
> point.
> >>
> >> pb
> >>
> >>
> >> *Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
> >> Foundation, Inc.
> >> T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | [email protected] | :
> >> @Philippewiki<https://twitter.com/Philippewiki>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER
> >> <[email protected]>wrote:
> >>
> >> > The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when
> discussing
> >> > with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main
> >> concern
> >> > is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking
> >> > countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary
> for
> >> > fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to
> >> volunteers
> >> > driven rules in the respective language editions.
> >> >
> >> > Rupert
> >> > Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" <
> >> [email protected]
> >> > >:
> >> >
> >> > > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is
> up
> >> > to
> >> > > the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
> >> edits
> >> > > in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words
> in
> >> > > various languages and with very different opinions on the subject,
> it
> >> > will
> >> > > be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as
> >> all
> >> > is
> >> > > possible
> >> > >
> >> > > Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the
> >> > > importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree
> >> > >
> >> > > I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become
> one
> >> > area
> >> > > to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy
> >> plan
> >> > >
> >> > > In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality
> became
> >> > > about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who
> make
> >> > an
> >> > > increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead
> of
> >> > > "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher
> quality"
> >> and
> >> > > then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors
> >> could
> >> > > had been one mean)
> >> > >
> >> > > In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles
> with
> >> > > higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and
> where
> >> > > paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need
> to
> >> > be
> >> > > supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc.
> >> > >
> >> > > Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more
> >> elaborate
> >> > > rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is
> >> > getting
> >> > > more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on
> skill
> >> > for
> >> > > editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher
> treshhold
> >> > for
> >> > > new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to
> >> start.
> >> > > But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified a
> >> > "semi-professional
> >> > > editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five
> >> years -
> >> > > more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years
> >> > >
> >> > > Anders
> >> > >
> >> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_
> >> > > contributions_amendment
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> > > [email protected]
> >> > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> > > <mailto:[email protected]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> > [email protected]
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> [email protected]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
